Date: November 30, 2017 09:17AM
It's interesting how this rationalization requires that the [offenses] be reclassified from [criminal] to [something less than criminal], mostly, [fellings of offense] by the victims, rather than the criminal actions of the perpetators:
Fair use quote from link for purposes of commenting:
"It is good that women should not be afraid to complain if they have been genuinely subjected to harassment (an offense that will require much more careful definition), so that men know that improprieties will, at the least, lead to severe embarrassment (as Moore and Franken are going through). But men (and women) have a right to be tasteless, stupid, and offensive without having their careers abruptly terminated with no deliberation or mercy."
That a crime was not reported or prosecuted makes it no less a crime. That a statute of limitations has been expended does not equate to innocence. Crime is "tasteless, stupid and offensive," but, it is also criminal. Sexual harrassment and assault are both crimes, and, those non-illegal, lesser descriptors that the author wishes to use.
If one chooses a public career, one should not break the law, or the sacrifice of his or her career may be required. That is also "lesser" than a criminal prosecution, in which case, that public career would have been much less likely. That the perpetrators got away with breaking the law does not then entitle them to getting away without any repercussions or responsibility for their crimes, for the remainder of their lives. And for a ladyst of these perps, there are multiple accusers/victims, and, the nature of the crimes was "general knowledge."
I would say that any "mercy" was dealt the perp in the avoidance of prosecution. He/she has already received a generous benefit from society, and along the way, became a societal "leader" of whatever stripe, usually, with great personal enrichment. The party is over. If we can't prosecute, that's the least price of having broken the law. If the perp put nothing away for a rainy day, not our problem.
And, what about their employers and supporters? Some deceived by the perp, some not. Sounds like the regular, expected abuses of organized religion. Put up, and shut up, all ye worthy brethren.
That "much more careful definition" -I'm sure- may be safely translated to: "decriminalizing unwanted/unasked touching." "One may touch, but not apply grabbing pressure." or "Brushing the nipple with the back of one's hand is not considered to be..."
... Some interesting redefinitions may be headed our way from this lot.